On the other hand, no-one has seen a magic flood wash oyster beds up a mountain without disturbing their arrangement, as Leonardo da Vinci pointed out.

Moreover, it is plain that the amount of organic sediment in the rocks is much too great to have been deposited in a single event. Do you know what limestone is made of?

For more evidence against the flood myth, I refer you to jar's post. The genetic bottlenecks we'd see if the Noah story were true just aren't there.

---

P.S: I remember seeing somewhere on this forum a picture of strata of petrified forests that were on top of one another, if you see what I mean ... does anyone know what I mean and where I can find it?

Okay, I'm game. Let's look at some of his so-called "scientific evidence".

* "Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks."

Apart from this not being true, as has been noted, there is, of course no reason to think that the Earth's sedimentary rocks are the result of a single, universal magic flood, rather than, for example, the processes of sedimentation which we can observe happening today.

* "How could sedimentary rock deposits come to rest near the top of Mt. Everest?"

By deposition and uplift, processes which we can observe today.

* "The existence of massive numbers of fossils worldwide is clear evidence of quick, mass burial."

No it isn't, any more then the existence of massive numbers of graves worldwide is proof that everyone died at the same time of magical causes.

* "Two paleontologists from the Museum of Natural History in Paris reported in Scientific American (September, 1988, p.70) that the evidence 'tells a contradictory story. They say this because some of the fossils are of marine (saltwater) creatures, some are definitely freshwater dwellers (e.g. amphibious), and some are definitely land creatures (e.g. spiders, scorpions, millipedes and certain insects and reptiles)."

Hmm ... I wonder if this was caused by a magic flood which covered the whole world, or by a non-magical flood which didn't?

Again, the claim that this was sudden, or that it was simultaneous, or that it involved magical supernatural processes rather than natural ones, is unsupported by any evidence or argument.

* "The random order of the fossils. The fossils within the sediments do not exhibit strong evidence of a record of evolution with simple animals at the bottom, progressing type by type up to more and more complex animals.

Unless you believe those pesky geologists.

* "The order is often random or completely upside down or out of order for evolution ... Example of random mixing of fossils. In excess of 3,000,000 fossils, representing more than 565 different species have been discovered in the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles, California."

I'm not sure whether this is ignorance or flat-out lying, but the fact is that the La Brea Tar Pits only contain fairly recent animals, as anyone could find out with fifteen seconds with Google; there are, for example, no dinosaurs, no trilobites, no mammal-like reptiles, no pterosaurs, no Small Shelly Fauna of the Tomotian ... just lots of Pleistocene animals. In short, the tar pits show the exact opposite of what the creationist apologist claims.

Why he thinks a flood would cause thousands of animals to get trapped in a tar pit is beyond me.

* "This evidence proves that fossils do not take thousands or millions of years to form."

Of course, no-one claims that individual fossils necessarily take a long time to form, but that the entire fossil record took a long time to form.

* It is, of course, not feasible that mother just lay on the bottom of the ocean floor giving birth for thousands of years while being slowly covered up by accumulating sediments!

And, of course, scientists do not believe that a dead ichthyosaur took thousands of years to give birth, because they are not flaming idiots. If the loon who wrote this article had thought about what he was saying for five seconds, he'd have realised that scientists can't possibly believe this, and that therefore he has no idea what geologists do think about fossils.

* "Authorities on biological taxonomy estimate there are less than 18,000 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians living in the world today. This number might be doubled to 36,000 species to allow for known and possible unknown extinct land animals."

As the same authorities estimate that 99% of species are extinct, doubling the number would hardly be sufficient.

* "Allowing two of each species there would have been a total number of 72,000 animals. If you add 3,000 more animals for the 5 extra of the clean animals this would bring the total to 75,000 animals far less than the 136,560 animals that could have been taken on the Ark. This means that only 60% of the Ark would have been filled allowing plenty of room for Noah, his family, and all the provisions needed for their voyage."

Is 40% of the Ark really enough room for provisions for 75000 animals for a year?

* "if man have lived on the earth for over a million years our population should be at a minimum of 1 trillion 500 billion people."

Idiotic. The population can't grow to a trillion and a half over any period of time, because there's not enough food to support them.

* "The scientific community is lying to the world by not revealing this evidence because it contradicts their atheism."

So, there are lots of lies here. First, there's the halfwitted pretence that all scientists are atheists. Second, that they are "lying to the world". About what? If you're going to call hundreds of thousands of people liars, it would be great to quote one of them saying one thing that isn't true.

And what are they "concealing from the world"? Everything he says in his article which is actually true, came from, guess who?

Scientists.

It is scientists who say there is sedimentary rock on Everest. It was scientists who recovered the bodies from the La Brea tar pits. It was, as he admits, scientists, in a popular science magazine, who informed him of anomalous deposits at Montceau-les-Mines. Call me Mr Whimsical if you will, but if I wanted to conceal something, I wouldn't publish it in a popular magazine with a circulation in excess of half-a-million.

Or again, he writes: "In another example, there is an exquisitely preserved fossil of an extinct marine reptile called an ichthyosaur. The mother ichthyosaur is shown having almost completed giving birth to a live infant—the beak of the young reptile is still inside mother's birth canal."

Who found this out?

Scientists.

Where did they publish it?

In a science journal.

It is precisely because scientists discovered and publicized these things that he knows about them. He has, of course, never excavated a fossil himself, because that would require work. Instead, the lazy ungrateful shit sits on his arse whining about how scientists are "lying to the world" by "concealing" the very facts that they have spent years of labor revealing.

It's hard to say whether he's deliberately lying or whether he thinks that scientific knowledge magically falls out of the sky. Either way, it's crazy. All the scientific knowledge he has, he owes to scientists. And he repays them by paranoid, hateful, and libellous ravings about how they're "concealing" it from him.

"For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

"And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life."

"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man"

"And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

You put those definitions together and the conclusion is simple and obvious, as the truth always is: The sediment that settled to the bottom of water was thus carried to rocks by water or wind. And since no scientist has yet maintained that there was once a global windstorm that carried all the sediment all over the world to the rocks all over the world, then water is how that sediment landed on the rocks all over the world.

That was weird. That lack of a single global windstorm does not mean that there was never any wind, or that wind has played no part in geology.

How did this weird notion get into your head?

Nor is a universal magic flood required for deposition of sediment by water. We can see sediment being deposited by non-magical means all the time.

So it takes MUCH EFFORT to deny a global flood and trying to change history in the process which can never be done because one cannot go back and change what people claimed happened. Never.

It takes very little effort to disprove the myth of the global flood, especially when you guys claim it was the source of all sedimentary rocks. It's like shooting fish in a barrrel.

The Bible stops giving the ages of the Father's when they had children after Jacob ...

This is true, but we don't need to know this to find out the date of the Flood.

Genesis 47 relates the settlement of the Israelites in Egypt to the age of Jacob:

"The land of Egypt is before thee; in the best of the land make thy father and brethren to dwell; in the land of Goshen let them dwell: and if thou knowest any men of activity among them, then make them rulers over my cattle.

And Joseph brought in Jacob his father, and set him before Pharaoh: and Jacob blessed Pharaoh.

And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How old art thou?

And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage."

Exodus 12 gives us the time between the settlement and the exodus:

"Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt."

1 Kings 6 gives us the interval between the Exodus and the beginning of the work on Solomon's Temple, which it fixes in the fourth year of Solomon's reign:

"And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD."

And from there on we can use the king lists in 1 & 2 Kings until we get up to a well-attested historical event of which we know the date.

... and we don't know how long it was between creation and the fall of man

Again, this is true, but we don't need to know this to find out the date of the Flood.

the sediment layers are not always consistent. In view of inconsistencies, how can sedimentary layers be considered 100% accurate?

I am curious to know what on earth you can mean by this.

and there is evidence that the DNA you are talking about is found in all the people around the earth...

You do not present this evidence. I realize that making stuff up is easier, but ultimately it is less convincing.

If the flood wiped out all people except the 3 sons and daughter in laws of Noah, then you would expect that the Native Americans would also have the same dna...and they do.

If the flood myth was true, we would not expect modern Native Americans to have the same genetic markers as Native Americans living 10,000 years ago. Indeed, if the Biblical chronology was correct, we wouldn't expect there to be such a time as 10,000 years ago.

what i mean by it is that sediment layers are not always consistent so using sediment layers as a proof of anything is flawed.one example is at Africa's Lake Rudolph and the Omo Valley (200kms away) where sediment layers were not consistent with each other. They were dated to the same period, but the pig fossils they found at each location were not the same type of pig fossil.

So ... sediments that came from the same time, but from different places, had different kinds of pigs in them?

OK, I'm convinced. The world is 6,000 years old, Noah's Flood happened, and everything geologists know is wrong. Because if they were right, then obviously every location in the world would have exactly the same kind of pig. That follows directly from some principle of geology that I can't remember right now.

Are you serious?

So what im questioning is how sediment layers can be used so affirmatively when they are not always consistent. Would you use a calculator which occasionally produced an incorrect answer?

Well, my calculator is equally "inconsistent". When I ask it to calculate 2 + 2, it gives the answer 4. But when I ask it what 2 + 200 is, it gives the answer 202. Obviously it is "inconsistent", or it wouldn't give different answers to different questions.

one example is at Africa's Lake Rudolph and the Omo Valley (200kms away) where sediment layers were not consistent with each other. They were dated to the same period, but the pig fossils they found at each location were not the same type of pig fossil.

Wait, I haven't finished mocking you.

Surely the standard model of "flood geology" is that all sedimentary rocks were formed at exactly the same time, namely during Noah's Flood?

So if having different pigs in different places at the same time is an argument against real geology, why isn't having different pigs in different places an argument against flood geology, which claims that all fossils were laid down at the same time?

The link you provide specifically states that "the skull is different from our own species, Homo sapiens" and that it has a cranial capacity of only 800 cc, as opposed to an average of 1500 cc for modern man.

You haven't answered my point. If it was impossible to have different kinds of pigs living in different places at the same time, then the existence of different pigs in different places in the geological record would mean that the fossils couldn't have been laid down by Noah's flood, which was a one-off event occurring at one particular time.

Of course, it is perfectly possible to have two species of pigs living at the same time. But if it was impossible, the fossil record would deliver the same blow to "flood geology" as you hope to deliver to real geology.